Subject: ​Correct The Record Monday February 13, 2015 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:48:05 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Monday February 13, 2015 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*New York Times opinion: Sec. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. Bill Frist:
“Save the Children’s Insurance”
<http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/13/opinion/hillary-clinton-and-bill-frist-on-health-care-for-americas-kids.html?referrer=>*

“No child in America should be denied the chance to see a doctor when he or
she needs one — but if Congress doesn’t act soon, that’s exactly what might
happen.”

*The Hill blog: Briefing Room: “Hillary calls for extending CHIP funding”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/232730-hillary-calls-for-extending-chip-funding>*

“The op-ed also marks the second time in as many weeks that Clinton has
jumped into a healthcare debate.”

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Clinton Consults Experts to
Chart Foreign-Policy Agenda”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/02/13/clinton-consults-experts-to-chart-foreign-policy-agenda/>*

“The major takeaway from these private talks is that she wants a strategy
more suited to shaping conditions overseas, as opposed to reacting to
events as they arise, people familiar with the meetings said.”

*National Journal: “Hillary Clinton's Play for Pennsylvania”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/twenty-sixteen/hillary-clinton-s-play-for-pennsylvania-20150212>*

“Pennsylvania is a geographically and demographically diverse state—and how
Clinton fares there among the state's electorate will be an indication of
her ability to shape a winning national coalition.”

*Politico: “Who's going to win Iowa and N.H.? Introducing The POLITICO
Caucus”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/iowa-new-hampshire-the-politico-caucus-115170.html>*

“The consensus across this group is that Hillary Clinton is almost
guaranteed to become the Democratic nominee. Only four of 70 who answered
guessed that a Democrat other than Clinton will ultimately win their state.”

*The Daily Beast: “Progressives: Between Hillary and a Hard Place”
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/13/progressives-between-hillary-and-a-hard-place.html>*

“Without a candidate to get behind, some liberal and labor groups are
focusing instead on changing the complexion of the electorate, hoping that
Clinton can be pulled to the left by forces on the ground.”

*BuzzFeed: “Top Latino Donors Warn Clinton: Do Better With Latinos Than
Dems Did In Florida, Colorado”
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/top-latino-donors-warn-clinton-do-better-with-latinos-than-d#.viaYY40B3>*

“Unlike the highly competitive Republican landscape, Clinton is expected to
be the Democratic nominee — the question for Democratic donors then is less
whether they’ll support her, and instead, with how much money and what
their priorities are. And when it comes to the growing base of Latino
donors looking to make their mark, the answer is incorporating Latinos into
a campaign in a real way, from the vice presidential selection to the
on-the-ground outreach to voters.”

*Business Insider: “Iowa Republicans are embracing Joe Biden to troll
Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.businessinsider.com/iowa-republicans-welcome-joe-biden-2015-2>*

“Republicans are mocking Hillary Clinton's absence from the 2016 campaign
trail by rolling out the red carpet for Vice President Joe Biden.”

*Articles:*

*New York Times opinion: Sec. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. Bill Frist:
“Save the Children’s Insurance”
<http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/13/opinion/hillary-clinton-and-bill-frist-on-health-care-for-americas-kids.html?referrer=>*

By Sec. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. Bill Frist

February 12, 2015

No child in America should be denied the chance to see a doctor when he or
she needs one — but if Congress doesn’t act soon, that’s exactly what might
happen.

For the past 18 years, the Children’s Health Insurance Program has provided
much-needed coverage to millions of American children. And yet, despite
strong bipartisan support, we are concerned that gridlock in Washington and
unrelated disputes over the Affordable Care Act could prevent an extension
of the program. As parents, grandparents and former legislators, we believe
that partisan politics should never stand between our kids and quality
health care.

We may be from different political parties, but both of us have dedicated
our careers to supporting the health of children and their families. This
shared commitment inspired us to work together in the late 1990s to help
create CHIP to address the needs of the two million children whose families
make too much money to be covered by Medicaid, but cannot afford private
insurance.

The resulting program, a compromise between Republicans and Democrats,
disburses money to the states but gives them flexibility to tailor how they
provide coverage to meet the needs of their own children and families. Some
expanded Medicaid; others created separate programs. As a result, the
number of uninsured children in America has dropped by half. Children miss
less school because of illness or injury, and we’ve seen a significant
decline in childhood mortality.

Today, state governments continue to rely on the program to meet crucial
health and budget priorities. It’s not surprising that every single
governor who responded to a 2014 survey — 39 in all — supported saving CHIP.

Of course, the American health care landscape has changed significantly
since CHIP started. Under the Affordable Care Act, many families with
children are now receiving financial help to enroll in private health
coverage through the new health insurance marketplace. But while it is
possible that private, family-wide policies offered by employers and
marketplaces may one day render CHIP unnecessary, for now substantial gaps
still exist — and too many children can still fall through them.

One specific provision of the Affordable Care Act, often called the “family
glitch,” has been interpreted to prevent many families from receiving
subsidized health coverage in the new marketplace if one parent is offered
“affordable coverage” through his or her job. In this case, “affordable” is
defined as less than roughly 9.5 percent of household income for that
parent to sign up alone — even though the actual cost of available family
coverage is far higher. For families affected by this glitch, CHIP may be
the only affordable option for making sure their children are covered.

We already know what happens when CHIP is no longer an option for families.
According to a recent report from the Georgetown University Health Policy
Institute, as many as 14,000 children in Arizona lost their health
insurance after 2010, when it became the only state to drop CHIP.

We don’t want to see the same thing happen across the country. If CHIP is
not reauthorized, more families will be hit with higher costs. As many as
two million children could lose coverage altogether. Millions more will
have fewer health care benefits and much higher out-of-pocket costs,
threatening access to needed health services. And because families without
adequate insurance often miss out on preventive care and instead receive
more expensive treatment in hospital emergency rooms, all of us will be
likely to end up paying part of the bill.

While reauthorization is not due until the end of September, Congress needs
to act now. With more than four-fifths of state legislatures adjourning by
the end of June, lack of action and clarity from Washington by then will
make budgeting and planning virtually impossible.

Reauthorizing CHIP for the next four years would cost about $10 billion —
an investment in our children that will pay off for decades to come. This
is an opportunity to send a message that Washington is still capable of
making common-sense progress for American families.

As 2015 unfolds, we know Congress will continue to debate the future of
health care reform. We most likely won’t see eye to eye about some of the
more contentious questions. But one thing everyone should be able to agree
on is that our most vulnerable children shouldn’t be caught in the
crossfire.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about our kids and our nation’s future.
What could be more important than that?

*The Hill blog: Briefing Room: “Hillary calls for extending CHIP funding”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/232730-hillary-calls-for-extending-chip-funding>*

By Jesse Byrnes

February 12, 2015, 9:29 p.m. EST

Hillary Clinton is pushing for Congress to reauthorize the federal
government's child healthcare program, lending her support to congressional
Democrats looking to keep the program around.

"[D]espite strong bipartisan support, we are concerned that gridlock in
Washington and unrelated disputes over the Affordable Care Act could
prevent an extension of the program," Clinton and former GOP Senate
Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.) wrote in an op-ed in The New York Times
on Thursday.

"As parents, grandparents and former legislators, we believe that partisan
politics should never stand between our kids and quality health care," the
pair added.

Clinton, the presumed 2016 Democratic presidential frontrunner, is calling
on Congress to extend the Children's Health Insurance Program's (CHIP)
funding for the next four years, labeling the approximately $10 billion
expense "an investment in our children that will pay off for decades to
come."

Senate Democrats have launched their own push to reauthorize the program,
signing on as co-sponsors of a bill that would extend funding through 2019.
Currently, the program's funding runs out at the end of September. A
companion bill was also introduced in the House on Thursday.

The program, which has been around for the better part of two decades,
covers about 10 million children. Some Republicans have cast CHIP as
duplicative given benefits under ObamaCare, and say additional subsidies
and eligibility under Medicaid make the program as unnecessary.

"If CHIP is not reauthorized, more families will be hit with higher costs.
As many as two million children could lose coverage altogether. Millions
more will have fewer health care benefits and much higher out-of-pocket
costs, threatening access to needed health services," Clinton and Frist
wrote.

"And because families without adequate insurance often miss out on
preventive care and instead receive more expensive treatment in hospital
emergency rooms, all of us will be likely to end up paying part of the
bill," they added.

The op-ed also marks the second time in as many weeks that Clinton has
jumped into a healthcare debate. Last week she tweeted that "#vaccineswork"
after two possible 2016 Republican contenders, Gov. Chris Christie (N.J.)
and Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) suggested that parents should have some choice on
whether to immunize their children.

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Clinton Consults Experts to
Chart Foreign-Policy Agenda”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/02/13/clinton-consults-experts-to-chart-foreign-policy-agenda/>*

By Peter Nicholas

February 13, 2015, 6:59 a.m. EST

Voters aren’t seeing much of Hillary Clinton these days, leading some
Democrats to wonder when their front-runner will enter the 2016 contest.
Behind the scenes, she is prepping carefully for the race of her life.

Private meetings that she’s held with various foreign-policy experts offer
some hints as to how she might part ways with President Barack Obama when
it comes to crises in Ukraine, Syria and other global trouble spots. The
major takeaway from these private talks is that she wants a strategy more
suited to shaping conditions overseas, as opposed to reacting to events as
they arise, people familiar with the meetings said.

In these meetings, Mrs. Clinton’s habit is to go a round the room, asking
questions and taking notes with pad and pen in hand. She has been looking
for an analysis of current conditions and possible solutions – but also a
more proactive posture, some familiar with the meetings say.

Mr. Obama has seemed flat-footed at times in response to the Islamic
State’s advances in Syria and Russian President Vladimir Putin‘s aggressive
moves to gain territory in Ukraine.

“There’s a degree of concern that what we’re doing oftentimes looks to be
reactive in response to what the problem of the moment is — as opposed to
what is the strategic approach and what might we be doing differently,”
said one person familiar with her thinking who requested anonymity.

As Secretary of State during Mr. Obama’s first term, Mrs. Clinton played
the role of loyal adviser in a foreign-policy apparatus that was run out of
the White House; Mr. Obama was the one making the decisions.

It seems clear that if Mrs. Clinton wins the White House she would chart a
different path than the one charted during the Obama administration.

In her 2014 book, “Hard Choices,” and in various speeches, Mrs. Clinton
suggested she would have been more interventionist in Syria in 2012–more
willing than the president to arm moderate rebels in hopes of stopping the
civil war. She has been unsparing in her criticism of Mr. Putin, likening
territorial grabs in Ukraine to Adolph Hitler’s aggression before World War
II.

“She’s much less risk-averse” than Mr. Obama, said Aaron David Miller, vice
president of the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars who has taken part in
Mrs. Clinton’s foreign-policy briefings.

If she becomes president, Mrs. Clinton might have some latitude to pursue a
more activist foreign policy. Context is everything.

Mr. Obama took office at a time when the nation was weary of the Iraq war.
His caution suited an electorate that was skeptical of new military
engagements. But after eight years of Mr. Obama, the public might be ready
for a president who favors a more muscular approach, Mr. Miller said.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll last month showed that 56% disapproved
of the president’s handling of foreign policy, compared to just 37% who
favored the job he’s doing.

“If she becomes president, her political space on foreign policy will be a
reaction to what has been criticized by many as an over-course correction
[by Mr. Obama],” Mr. Miller said. “She’ll have an easier time of it, I
think, than Obama had in this direction.”

*National Journal: “Hillary Clinton's Play for Pennsylvania”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/twenty-sixteen/hillary-clinton-s-play-for-pennsylvania-20150212>*

By Emily Schultheis

February 12, 2015

Democrats face two major demographic challenges in the 2016 presidential
campaign. First, can Hillary Clinton, assuming she's the party's nominee,
win back the white working-class voters who have drifted toward Republicans
in recent years? And second, will she be able to maintain the Democratic
coalition that twice elected Barack Obama president—including the sky-high
turnout among African-American voters his campaign spurred?

Those questions will be partly answered in Pennsylvania, where Democrats
have just announced they're holding their 2016 convention.

As Philadelphia's selection for the 2016 Democratic convention spurs
headlines about the symbolism of Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell,
the importance of the state goes far beyond that. It's a microcosm of the
challenges Democrats face in putting together a winning coalition.

Pennsylvania is the GOP's perennial white whale: Every four years,
Republicans puts money and time into a last-minute effort to mine the
state's electoral votes—and every time since 1988, they've been
unsuccessful. Though it's still early, Democrats and observers in the state
say that with Democrats' presidential-year electoral advantages there,
there's little chance that dynamic will change this time around.

"It's a state that has become solidly blue in presidential politics and
now, in many ways, is a cornerstone of the Democratic electoral coalition,
along with other big states—along with New York, Illinois, and California,"
said Chris Borick, a veteran Pennsylvania pollster at Muhlenberg College,
adding that winning Pennsylvania is "almost a given for Democrats."

A February Quinnipiac poll found Clinton starting out strong in
Pennsylvania with high favorability ratings and double-digit leads over all
her would-be GOP challengers. Fifty-five percent of the state's voters
viewed her favorably, compared with 38 percent who viewed her
unfavorably—far better than any of the GOP hopefuls fared. In hypothetical
head-to-head matchups, Clinton bested New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie by 11
points (50-39), former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush by 15 points (50-35), Sen.
Rand Paul of Kentucky by 19 points (53-34), and both former Arkansas Gov.
Mike Huckabee and former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania by 20 points
(54-34).

But Pennsylvania is a geographically and demographically diverse state—and
how Clinton fares there among the state's electorate will be an indication
of her ability to shape a winning national coalition. Victory for Democrats
now largely hinges on the southeastern part of the state, where they need
to draw a strong turnout in Philadelphia proper and to win a majority in
the four suburban counties (Montgomery, Bucks, Chester, and Delaware) that
surround it. At the same time, a significant chunk of the state—the
southwestern part near Pittsburgh and the northeastern part surrounding
Scranton—is full of white, working-class voters whom Democrats have
struggled with in recent years.

Pennsylvania Democratic operatives and observers say Clinton has a track
record of connecting better with the state's working-class electorate than
Obama did in 2008 and 2012—but that African-American turnout drop-off is
certainly a concern. In an interview with BuzzFeed, Obama said he didn't
"think any president inherits a coalition," adding that "any candidate has
to win over people based on what they stand for, what their message is,
what their vision is for the future."

Back in the 2008 Democratic primary, when Clinton defeated Obama by just
under 10 points, the former secretary of State did well among exactly those
kinds of voters. Exit polls found Clinton ahead of Obama among
Pennsylvania's white voters, low- and middle-income voters, and those
without a college degree.

"Her father came from Scranton, so she's always had a strong base there in
the same way that Joe Biden has," said Charlie Lyons, a veteran Democratic
strategist in the state. "And I think she comes out of that area strong,
and in the southwest I think she has the potential to come out perhaps even
stronger than the president did."

As a surrogate for now-Gov. Tom Wolf in Philadelphia last fall, Clinton
came out swinging with what observers say is the closest indication she's
given of the kind of message her campaign could have—one heavy on economic
fairness, equal pay, and education funding. These are the kinds of issues
that play well among both minority voters and working-class whites.

As for African-American voters in Philadelphia, observers in the state say
it would be tough for Clinton to match the kind of turnout Obama drew among
that demographic—but that the drop-off wouldn't be enough to affect her
chances in the state. In 2008, exit polling data showed Obama winning 95
percent of African-American voters in Pennsylvania, compared with just 5
percent for Republican nominee John McCain; even if turnout among that
demographic decreases, the margins will likely be similar.

"She clearly has room to build on voters that Obama didn't have—while being
challenged to make sure she has the same or close levels of turnout in the
Democrat-rich Philadelphia city limits," Borick said.

Even if Pennsylvania seems unlikely to top 2016's list of presidential
swing states, it will undoubtedly be home to one of the most competitive
Senate campaigns on the map this cycle: the race to unseat GOP Sen. Pat
Toomey, who rode into office on the Republican wave of 2010.

And while party conventions rarely have an effect on the presidential
electoral outcome in a state, they're known for energizing the party base
and drawing attention to in-state candidates—which, for Philadelphia, could
have a positive effect on turning the city's African-American voters out to
the polls that fall for both Clinton and Toomey's Democratic challenger.

"Pat Toomey is going to be seriously challenged," said Dan Fee, a veteran
of both of former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell's gubernatorial campaigns.
"This is a year, and this is a race, in which there will be significant
turnout in areas that will never vote for Pat Toomey."

*Politico: “Who's going to win Iowa and N.H.? Introducing The POLITICO
Caucus”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/iowa-new-hampshire-the-politico-caucus-115170.html>*

By James Hohmann

February 13, 2015, 5:58 a.m. EST

[Subtitle:] The Walker surge in Iowa, Hillary’s Obama problem and other
news from Week One of our yearlong insiders’ survey from the ground in
2016’s first-in-the-nation races.

Most Iowa insiders believe Scott Walker would win their state’s caucuses if
they were this week.

But they’re not this week, and virtually none of the most influential
thought leaders in the Hawkeye State believe that the Wisconsin governor
will sustain his recent bounce in polls.

This is one of several intriguing findings in the debut survey of The
POLITICO Caucus. More than 100 of the most plugged-in activists, operatives
and elected officials in Iowa and New Hampshire have agreed to answer a
weekly survey over the next year, which will be published here every
Friday. It’s a diverse mix of powerful figures from across the political
spectrum, including party chairmen, members of Congress, radio hosts and
rising stars who command loyal followings.

The insiders are immersed in the nomination battles and their views could
be a leading indicator of where the polls are heading. The vast majority of
those who are participating are not committed to a candidate yet, though
some are playing key roles on the burgeoning campaigns.

The consensus across this group is that Hillary Clinton is almost
guaranteed to become the Democratic nominee. Only four of 70 who answered
guessed that a Democrat other than Clinton will ultimately win their state.

But there’s widespread agreement that the GOP field really is wide open. In
New Hampshire, the feeling is that Jeb Bush would win the
first-in-the-nation primary if it was this week but that it’s premature to
call him a frontrunner.

Six in 10 Iowa insiders surveyed believe Walker would win the caucuses if
they were this week. But only two of the 32 Iowans who returned
questionnaires believe the Wisconsin governor will ultimately prevail. “He
will now go through a scrutiny that will determine how prepared he is to
sustain this frontrunner status,” one Iowa Republican remarked.

Here are the key takeaways from our first weekly survey:

Jeb Bush and Scott Walker are fighting for frontrunner status. But neither
has it.

Most Republican insiders answered “no” when asked if there’s a GOP
frontrunner. The field is stronger than in 2012, and any one from a handful
of candidates could emerge as the nominee, they believe.

Walker got a big boost from his breakout speech at an event put on last
month by Iowa Rep. Steve King in Des Moines. But the insiders are keenly
aware he remains untested outside Wisconsin.

Bush is a bigger media draw, enjoys higher name ID and has access to more
money than any other GOP candidate. For these reasons, one New Hampshire
Republican said he is the frontrunner “simply by default.”

Others on the right argued that none of these advantages is enough to make
Bush a “real” frontrunner the way that Mitt Romney was at this stage in
2012. “It’s too early,” said one of the GOP respondents from New Hampshire.
“There’s a lot of kicking of tires yet to happen.”

An Iowa Republican remarked, “This is the most wide open contest I have
ever seen.”

The world matters. At least, a surprisingly high number of insiders think
2016 will be a national security election.

Roughly half of those interviewed identified the economy – from stagnant
wages to income inequality – as the defining issue of 2016. The next-most
cited issue was foreign policy and/or national security, with about a
quarter of those surveyed predicting it will drive the debate.

Several insiders mentioned specifically the Islamic State and the Levant,
or ISIL.

A nonpartisan academic from Iowa said the use of force directive introduced
to Congress by President Barack Obama “automatically moves foreign affairs
up on this list for 2016.”

Clinton, as the former Secretary of State, will likely position herself as
the candidate with unrivaled foreign policy chops. Florida Sen. Marco
Rubio, who looks increasingly serious about running, is playing up his
roles on the Senate intelligence and foreign relations committees.

Rand Paul is winning the GOP ground war. So far.

Hillary Clinton has a built-in, years-in-the-making campaign organization
that insiders from both parties agreed is unrivaled. Her 2008 supporters
are still with her, and many Obama hands are ready to get on board.

On the Republican side, the majority surveyed in both states said Rand Paul
has the most robust organization. His father, Ron, finished third in Iowa
and second in New Hampshire in 2012, giving the Kentucky senator a network
to build from.

“Paul probably has the best organization at this point, with good
management and strong grass roots,” said a New Hampshire Republican.
“Others will catch up and level this out though.”

Others in Iowa mentioned retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, who has benefited
from an aggressive movement to draft him into the race, and former Texas
Gov. Rick Perry, who has been spending a lot of time in the state.

Does being a Bush help or hurt Jeb? Insiders are split.

Most Democrats think George W. Bush would be a serious drag on Jeb in a
general election. But Republicans are almost evenly divided about whether
the Bush name is more of an asset or a liability for the former governor.

“It is a wash if Jeb gets out and shows he is his own person,” said an
uncommitted Iowa Republican.

Another said anyone who doesn’t think it’s a net positive is “nuts” but
added, “Bush fatigue is a real issue.”

A New Hampshire Republican called it a “two-edge sword” with the grass
roots. Another described it as a “net asset in a primary” and a “net
liability in the general.”

If Rand Paul benefits from his father’s network, so does Jeb Bush, wrote
another Republican respondent from the Hawkeye State. “On one hand both his
Dad and Brother won here,” this person said of Bush. “A lot of activists
who were a part of those camps will be a great starting point for an
organization. But the name brand isn’t going to help with conservatives,
tea party folks and the liberty crowd.”

Clinton could be America’s first woman president. And one of its oldest.
The pols think age could be a bigger potential problem.

Asked whether the former First Lady’s age or gender is more of a possible
liability in the campaign, six in 10 picked her age. Only a handful said
gender; the rest said neither.

“Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton are the same age, but that won’t stop
someone like, say, Rand Paul, whose father ran for president in his
mid-70s, from trying to make it a thing,” said a New Hampshire Democrat.

An Iowa Democrat said that Clinton’s gender will be the bigger issue, “but
that won’t manifest till the general election.” Others called the question
absurd.

Several Republicans worried that Clinton’s potential to break the ultimate
glass ceiling is a big asset and may draw independent women to her
candidacy.

Yes, the inside line has Hillary Clinton walking away with the Democratic
nod.

Almost no one in either party thinks Clinton won’t wind up winning both
early states. They may want her to spend time on the ground and insist that
she’ll have to earn it, but there are few who doubt that she’ll win at the
end of the day. Clinton finished third in Iowa last time and won an upset
in New Hampshire.

“It seems very unlikely that anyone in the primary field as of now could
come near her,” said an Iowa Democrat. “Nobody sees that changing, and Iowa
Democrats are equal parts bored and furious about it.”

There are varying opinions about who, if anyone, will emerge as Clinton’s
main Democratic challenger. Most Democrats said no one. Warren was the most
mentioned, followed by former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, ex-Virginia
Sen. Jim Webb and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Just one Democrat mentioned
Vice President Joe Biden.

Republicans see Ted Cruz as likeliest to emerge as the social conservative
favorite.

Evangelicals picked the last two winners of the Iowa caucuses: Mike
Huckabee and Rick Santorum. Both are running again, but neither can count
on the support they had in 2008 and 2012, respectively. An Iowa Republican
predicted that “a firebrand” like the Texas senator is more likely to win
over base voters.

Among GOP insiders, twice as many picked Cruz to become the leading social
conservative candidate as anyone else. But the field is scattered, with
nominations for Santorum, Huckabee, Carson, Walker, Rubio, Bobby Jindal and
others.

“I think in the short term it will be Ted Cruz,” said an Iowa Republican.
“In the long-term I think a guy like Santorum will emerge again because of
his ability to weave” his moral beliefs through an array of social and
pocketbook issues.

A New Hampshire Republican warned against counting out Huckabee: “It
depends on how well a campaign [he] runs.”

Political chatter this week is all about Scott Walker not having graduated
from college. Does it matter? Our insiders say no.

The question of Walker’s lack of a college degree split respondents: A few
more said it will hurt than help his prospects. Several of those who
thought it would be a plus remarked it could enhance his “regular guy”
image.

But very few believe Walker’s scholastic deficit will move votes.

“A surprising number of people seem to know Harry Truman pulled it off and
the Democratic Party Chair here is also without a college degree and the
sky has not fallen,” said one New Hampshire Democrat. “The precise
circumstances of leaving college—not the fact of no degree—could be more
problematic to New Hampshire voters if the circumstances are unsavory.”

“I can’t wait to see this play out,” said an Iowa Democrat. “I will be
terribly disappointed if one of his rivals, or a surrogate, does not put
their foot in their mouth on this issue. … I think it will make him seem
more populist.”

Who’s a bigger help to Hillary? Both Democrats and Republicans pick Bill
Clinton over Obama.

The former president is viewed by both Democrats and Republicans as much
more of an asset for Hillary than Obama. Only one of the Democrats surveyed
think that he hurts her, although two other Democrats said there are sure
to be some moments where he becomes unhelpful – just like in 2008.

All but a handful of Republicans think having Bill Clinton on the campaign
trail helps her.

Among 31 Democrats who answered the question, 16 said Obama is an asset,
while 7 said he is a liability. The rest said they’re either unsure or it
depends on what happens overseas and with the economy.

“The President is up and down in New Hampshire like a yo-yo,” said a
Democrat there.

“They should see him as an asset, but I am not sure that they do,” added an
Iowa Democrat. “He will win them caucus voters and help solidify her base.”

*The Daily Beast: “Progressives: Between Hillary and a Hard Place”
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/13/progressives-between-hillary-and-a-hard-place.html>*

By David Freedlander

February 13, 2015

[Subtitle:] Between Hillary and a Hard Place

Elizabeth says she’s a no. Bernie is a fighter, but he is also, you know,
Bernie. O’Malley doesn’t excite, Webb used to be a Republican, and Hillary
is, well, a Clinton.

The 2016 presidential primaries are fast approaching. What is a good
progressive to do?

At a moment when a handful of issues that liberal activists have campaigned
on for years, from raising the minimum wage to the growth of corporate
power to climate change to criminal justice reform, are entering the
mainstream debate—even within the Republican Party—progressives are facing
the prospect of being rendered voiceless just as the nation is tuning in to
the 2016 presidential primary.

“What progressives are saying is, how are we going to get people out of bed
to vote if we don’t stand up on the issues that people care about,” said Ed
Ott, a longtime New York labor leader and a professor of labor studies at
the City University of New York.  “There is a lot of anger at the
Democratic Party. People want to know where they stand.”

This strange moment for progressives was crystallized over the weekend when
the liberal Working Families Party, which is based in Clinton’s home state
of New York and which backed her in both of her Senate runs, decided to
join liberal groups such as Move On and Democracy for America in supporting
a Draft Warren effort.

The move dismayed some progressives. Warren has consistently maintained she
isn’t running, and fantasies that she will change her mind distract from
some more achievable goals, some liberals maintain.

“The whole Warren thing is kind of silly,” said Howie Klein, a progressive
activist who blogs at the website Down with Tyranny. “If I could pick
anybody to run for president it would be her, but she is not going to do
it. It started out as a not-bad idea but I think it has gone on long
enough.”

Without a candidate to get behind, some liberal and labor groups are
focusing instead on changing the complexion of the electorate, hoping that
Clinton can be pulled to the left by forces on the ground. After a summit
on the issue of raising wages (headlined, it should be noted, by Elizabeth
Warren) the AFL-CIO announced that they would barnstorm the first four
primary states to rally voters around the issue.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, meanwhile, is trying to persuade
progressive leaders in Iowa and New Hampshire to hold off announcing that
they are ready for Hillary until she publicly announces where she stands on
key liberal issues such as expanding Social Security and breaking up big
banks.

“We really have a one of a kind role at this point, which is being a
grassroots force that is working to incentivize all of the Democratic
presidential candidates to sound more like Elizabeth Warren,” said Adam
Green, the group’s executive director. “It’s a different strategy, but we
want Warren’s positions to be the mainstream Democratic position.”

Although PCCC did not sign on to the Draft Warren effort, Green said that
the organizing around it is helping to pull Clinton to the left even
without Warren.

“In many ways the prospect of Elizabeth Warren running might be more
powerful than the actual candidacy of Elizabeth Warren,” Green added. “If
she makes no comment about running for president for the next six months
there is every incentive in the world for Hillary Clinton to co-opt her
message so that Warren doesn’t jump in. If Hillary said, ‘We should cut
Social Security, we don’t need to regulate the banks,’ I think you would
see not just Warren but a lot of people jump in.”

A dozen progressive activists, donors and operatives from around the
country said much the same thing: their first choice was Warren, and
despite her denials, they believe there is still time for her to get into
the race, and that she would meet a groundswell of grassroots and
fundraising support if she did.

“We are in a conditional situation—if Hillary runs strong [Warren] won’t
run,” said Bob Fertik, a progressive activist and political consultant.
“But Hillary could decide not to run, or she could flame out on any given
day for any reason—it could be about Bill, it could be a thousand reasons.
If that happens then the entire progressive movement would rise up behind
Elizabeth Warren.”

Most progressives interviewed for this story did not sound particularly
enthusiastic about the other Democratic challengers.

On Martin O’Malley, the two-term governor of Maryland who is running
cautiously to the left of Clinton, Fertik said, “Nobody has heard of him.”

“He seems like someone who is running really hard to be vice president. I
have no feel for the guy one way or the other,” said Klein.

“I can’t imagine he is going to get traction,” said Robert Borosage, the
head of the liberal Campaign for America’s Future.

Bernie Sanders should be the progressive choice. The socialist senator
from Vermont rails against the billionaire class, and unlike Warren, has
never been wrapped up in the political money game. Which is precisely the
problem.

“Unlike Elizabeth, Bernie is actually running for president. What do you
think it says about him that we are all trying to get Elizabeth in,” said
one person involved in the Draft Warren effort.

“Sanders is extremely progressive,” said Douglas Kahn, who has given more
than $100,000 to liberal candidates over the last couple of election
cycles. “I would love his ideas and principles to be the platform of
the…Party. That is not likely to happen.”

Klein has been raising money for Sanders, but now he thinks the Draft
Warren effort has sucked up all of the progressive energy, and he is not
certain Sanders will run.

“I think the whole Elizabeth thing has been very disappointing for Bernie.”

Some progressives say they remain curious about the prospect of Webb.

“I think he is going to be stronger than a lot of people think,” said
Borosage. “Hillary wants to be to the right of Obama on foreign policy, and
that opens up space for [Virginia’s Jim] Webb, especially if we get
ensnared in the Ukraine or the Middle East and things go south. There
remains a huge anti-war sentiment out there.”

“People have short memories,” responded Klein. “Webb is no lefty. He was to
the right of Hillary Clinton on practically every vote.”

Which raises the question: What about Hillary? She after all supports
Dodd-Frank, favors a higher minimum wage and has long history of fighting
for working families.  And all the activists spoken to for this article
said they would support her in a general election.

But they also said that at last the public seemed interested in income
inequality, and they doubted that Hillary Clinton could carry the torch,
especially if she coasted in the primary.

“What this election should be about is the very structure of the economy,”
said Borosage. “And where is Hillary when it comes to shackling Wall
Street, when it comes to CEO pay, when it comes to unions. She needs a
challenge so we can hear these things out.”

Zephyr Teachout, who ran a left-leaning charge against New York Governor
Andrew Cuomo in 2014 and who was a key organizer on Howard Dean’s 2004
campaign, said there was plenty of time for someone to emerge, someone
perhaps who isn’t being yet discussed in the corridors of Washington D.C.

“The big fear about Hillary Clinton is that she might be a very weak
candidate, and that she doesn’t reflect the best interests of a lot of
traditional and populists Democrats. I certainly share those fears, but
there is plenty of time for a true populist to jump into the race.”

So don’t despair then?

“No! Despair is the ultimate strategy of the neo-liberals, and it doesn’t
accomplish anything.”

*BuzzFeed: “Top Latino Donors Warn Clinton: Do Better With Latinos Than
Dems Did In Florida, Colorado”
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/top-latino-donors-warn-clinton-do-better-with-latinos-than-d#.viaYY40B3>*

By Adrian Carrasquillo

February 12, 2015, 3:57 p.m. EST

[Subtitle:] The donors and fundraisers tell BuzzFeed News Hillary Clinton
must set up a real and meaningful operation to reach Latino voters. Other
wishes? A Latino vice presidential nominee.

A network of top Latino Democratic donors is warning early that Hillary
Clinton must correct one of the big mistakes Democrats made in 2014: taking
Latino voter turnout for granted.

Unlike the highly competitive Republican landscape, Clinton is expected to
be the Democratic nominee — the question for Democratic donors then is less
whether they’ll support her, and instead, with how much money and what
their priorities are. And when it comes to the growing base of Latino
donors looking to make their mark, the answer is incorporating Latinos into
a campaign in a real way, from the vice presidential selection to the
on-the-ground outreach to voters.

“Hillary just needs to look at Colorado and Florida,” said Andrés W. López,
a lawyer from Puerto Rico and co-founder of the Futuro Fund, referencing
the losses of Charlie Crist and former Sen. Mark Udall. “They’re prime
examples of how you don’t succeed. It’s essentially squandering opportunity
and neglecting the Latino community, doing the same basic things you did
before, which is an endless source of frustration for us.”

The Futuro Fund was one of the major Democratic fundraising success stories
of 2012; led prominently by Eva Longoria and Henry Muñoz, the group raised
$32 million for Barack Obama’s reelection effort. López, one of the first
major Latino donors to join Obama in 2007, individually raised millions
which was folded into the Futuro Fund. That effort then begat the Latino
Victory Project, a fundraising effort to increase Latino candidates in
politics. (The group says they are nonpartisan and are looking for
Republicans, but have only supported Democrats.) Muñoz, meanwhile, became
the DNC’s finance chairman.

The mistakes of last year for Democrats are clear, the donors say, and
there were plenty of missed opportunities.

Ralph Patino, a Latino Victory Project board member from Miami, met
then-Senator Obama in 2007 at a Marriott in Orlando. Enthralled by Obama,
he immediately cut a $35,000 check. He later found out that donation put
him in the top 1% of Latino donors in the country. In 2012, he bundled $1
million at his home one night for Obama.

Having worked closely with the Crist campaign, Patino said its inadequate
Hispanic voter operation is a reason they lost a race that was decided by a
razor-thin 60,000 votes.

“Charlie is a good friend,” Patino told BuzzFeed News. “I told them we need
to concentrate on the I-4 corridor, from the east to the west, from Orlando
all the way across to Tampa. Let’s get Eva Longoria involved, let’s have
rallies. Let’s connect to Latinos.”

He says the mistake was a common one: having a Latino outreach “appendage”
rather than making it a fundamental part of the campaign.

“The guy they put in as the Latino outreach director was very lightweight,
extremely lightweight,” he said. “You have to have, from the ground up, a
Latino organization within your election committee.”

Sources close to the Latino Victory Project said that as the organization
lays out its plans looking ahead to 2016, one major priority has emerged:
pushing for a Latino vice presidential nominee.

The president of the Latino Victory Project, Cristóbal Alex, declined to
comment.

Julián Castro, the former San Antonio mayor who Obama picked as his current
Housing and Urban Development Secretary, is the one most often mentioned as
someone Clinton might look at for the position after his keynote speech at
the 2012 Democratic National Convention. It was Muñoz who pushed for Castro
— whom he called the “future of the Democratic Party, the future of this
country” — to give the speech.

But top Latino donors say it’s about more than pushing Clinton to choose a
Latino running mate.

“You want to always keep your eye on what will essentially be the most
high-profile position in the land,” López said. “My concern is sometimes we
lose sight of the larger issue. We should spend time building a robust
pipeline of people for other positions.”

He said many like former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who have real
power to effect change in the country, joined Obama’s administration after
spending time in Bill Clinton’s administration.

Frank Sánchez, who served in the Clinton and Obama administrations, and
bundled $500,000 in 2008 but did not fundraise in 2012 because he was part
of the administration, said a Latino running mate would be great but it’s
not something he’s personally pushing for.

“My sense is that if your interest is in having someone win, you don’t
impose those kinds of demands,” he said. “We should give her latitude to
pick who makes the most sense for the country and the ticket. Latino
candidates should be in the mix though, a few should be on any shortlist.”

The donors BuzzFeed News spoke with all echoed López in insisting that
Clinton needs to have Latinos on staff, in her inner circle — and were she
to win — in appointments and cabinet positions.

“It can’t be one of these situations we’ve seen time and time again where
everything is a general market strategy until some genius inside the war
room figures out they should reach out to Latino voters and everybody is
scurrying to translate haphazardly,” said media strategist Freddy Balsera,
an early Obama supporter and 2012 bundler who raised $500,000. “It has to
be part of the conversation from day one.”

Balsera was named in a December New York Times report after the Obama
administration overturned a ban on a politically-connected Ecuadorian
national entering the country. Her family donated to Democratic campaigns
and Balsera employed her and sponsored her visa. The ban was overturned by
the State Department, which was under Clinton at the time.

Manuel Sanchez, a Chicago lawyer, who helped raise $8 million for Obama in
2008 and was part of the Futuro Fund in 2012, said he was at the National
Council of La Raza event in Obama’s first term when he promised to focus on
“immigration reform in his first 100 days.” Despite Obama’s executive
actions to protect millions from deportation, he said Clinton can’t make
the same mistake of not making an immigration overhaul a priority.

“People don’t forget that,” he said.

“She needs to continue to push for some action on immigration, to say that
it’s been a disappointment is a gross understatement,” Frank Sánchez added.

Balsera said “for a lot of Hispanics the immigration debate is about how
accepting you are of this new community.”

The donors didn’t stop there, imagining a suite of positions Clinton could
take along with immigration, including support for Obama’s move to
normalize relations with Cuba and Puerto Rican statehood, an issue close to
the heart of López, who is from the island and frames it as “equality” for
Puerto Ricans, which to him, means citizenship.

“I don’t want to live in a place where an American can raise millions of
dollars and I can’t vote,” he said, noting that the 2020 Census may
surprise many who think they know Florida’s demographics.

“People are going to be in shock in about four years when it turns out
Puerto Ricans outnumber Cubans in Florida,” he said.

Gone are the days of 2004, Frank Sánchez says, when John Kerry and George
W. Bush combined to spend only around $7 million on outreach to Hispanic
voters.

“In 2008, Obama spent $22 million by himself,” he said.

And López pointed to the big Clinton-world news this week, when infighting
between Priorities USA and other pro-Clinton groups broke out in the public
eye.

“There are no top-level Latino names. That’s what we notice, not what
everyone else is noticing,” he said. “For the newer folks among us, it’s
about how do you change this? It’s about getting inside the room with them
and saying, ‘What are you doing to reach Latinos?’ That’s the adult
conversation that needs to happen with Hillary’s folks, and it can’t just
be all white guys.”

Manuel Sanchez broke down the importance of real-live Latinos having
Clinton’s ear.

“At minimum they bring the issue to the fore,” he said, “it doesn’t mean
its going to carry the day but if you don’t have the person in the room
with the decision makers, in a tight inner circle, then it’s very likely
the issue will be ignored.”

*Business Insider: “Iowa Republicans are embracing Joe Biden to troll
Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.businessinsider.com/iowa-republicans-welcome-joe-biden-2015-2>*

By Colin Campbell

February 12, 2015

Republicans are mocking Hillary Clinton's absence from the 2016 campaign
trail by rolling out the red carpet for Vice President Joe Biden.

Biden, who hasn't ruled out running for president next year, visited Iowa
on Thursday for two events on college campuses. The state's GOP reacted to
the news by gleefully noting it's been some time since Clinton, the
Democratic front-runner, dropped by the key presidential primary state.

"We welcome Vice President Biden to Iowa and are glad he is here to give
Iowa voters the time and consideration they deserve," the party's
chairman,  Jeff Kaufmann, said in a statement.

Meanwhile, co-chair Cody Hoefert accused Clinton of expecting a
"coronation" despite coming in third place in Iowa when she last ran for
president in 2008.

"Say what you will about Vice President Biden, but at least he’s here,"
Hoefert said. "While the Republican Party prepares for one of the most
vibrant nomination contests in memory, the Democrats are frozen in place
waiting for Hillary Clinton’s coronation. Hillary has never had a warm
relationship with Iowa voters, and it’s clear she doesn’t care much to fix
it now. I'm confident Iowa voters will remember this in 2016."

Clinton's team insists she will fight hard for the state's votes if she
launches a bid for the White House. Her campaign is widely viewed as all
but certain and polls show she is well ahead of any potential rivals.

"If she runs, she will take nothing for granted, and she will fight for
every vote," Clinton's spokesman Nick Merrill told The Des Moines Register.
"Anyone who thinks otherwise should think again."

However, Clinton has had almost no public appearances or media interviews
so far this year. In January, she notably held two events but they were
paid speaking engagements in Canada. (Clinton has been fiercely criticized
for taking sums as high as $300,000 in speaking fees.)

The national Republican Party also recently mocked Clinton for her lack of
public events. The party bought a "Hillary's Hiding" billboard in Iowa on
Wednesday and even released a fake movie trailer the next day noting she
launched her 2008 campaign much earlier:

[VIDEO]

*Calendar:*

*Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official
schedule.*

·  February 24 – Santa Clara, CA: Sec. Clinton to Keynote Address at
Inaugural Watermark Conference for Women (PR Newswire
<http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hillary-rodham-clinton-to-deliver-keynote-address-at-inaugural-watermark-conference-for-women-283200361.html>
)

·  March 3 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton honored by EMILY’s List (AP
<http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268798/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=SUjRlg8K>)

·  March 4 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton to fundraise for the Clinton
Foundation (WSJ
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/01/15/carole-king-hillary-clinton-live-top-tickets-100000/>
)

·  March 16 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton to keynote Irish American Hall of
Fame (NYT <https://twitter.com/amychozick/status/562349766731108352>)

·  March 19 – Atlantic City, NJ: Sec. Clinton keynotes American Camp
Association conference (PR Newswire <http://www.sys-con.com/node/3254649>)

·  March 23 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton to keynote award ceremony for
the Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting (Syracuse
<http://newhouse.syr.edu/news-events/news/former-secretary-state-hillary-rodham-clinton-deliver-keynote-newhouse-school-s>
)